Shortest version -Ontological argument (again I know, I love this argument)

[Link]

You might as well just assume God exists and not need an argument at all.

The ontological argument shows this to be the case. God is evident in his existence and so yes doesn't need an argument.

What the ontological argument does is show more facts beyond that but also, that not only do we see it exists, but can't conceive of it not existing. It exists necessarily. But it shows, we can't even say perhaps it doesn't exist, perhaps it's in my imagination, because it's Necessity shows it's not for sure.

We see ourselves exist. But we know we don't exist necessarily, we are contingent beings. Our parents could've never met (naturalism wise) and we would not exist.

God is seen to exist true by this argument and so its seem redundant. But the argument is showing for skeptics, the idea of God is not a mere idea, you can't divorce existence from it because it's vastness and greatness implies it exists. This is known through the concept of Necessary existence.

 

[viole]

If it's unsolved, then it isn't conceived to be necessary. Necessary would be something known to be true in all possible worlds for math wise. I don't enough of GC to comment on whether it's actually conceived to be necessary.

Remember there is a difference between assertion and conceiving. Conceiving would mean, you know precisely, that this thing is necessary. I can perceive for sure 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. Same with short distance between two points is a straight line. That is a Necessary truth about two points. It's not the case in some possible world x, this would be not true.

one at a time. Take my case 1, how do you intend to defeat it, since it uses the same argument to prove that God does not exist? Since the conclusion seems to follow from the premises, at least one of the premises must be false. Which one is it?

ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Assertion is different then conceiving.

 

[Polymath257]

The ontological argument shows this to be the case. God is evident in his existence and so yes doesn't need an argument.

No, God is NOT evident in 'his' existence. That is the whole point of trying to prove the existence.

What the ontological argument does is show more facts beyond that but also, that not only do we see it exists, but can't conceive of it not existing. It exists necessarily. But it shows, we can't even say perhaps it doesn't exist, perhaps it's in my imagination, because it's Necessity shows it's not for sure.

I disagree. You only get that conclusion if, in fact, it does exist. And the fact that I *can* imagine a possible world in which God does not exist shows, according to this rather strange logic, that God does not exist.

We see ourselves exist. But we know we don't exist necessarily, we are contingent beings. Our parents could've never met (naturalism wise) and we would not exist.

Right. I think it arguable that this is actually possible (maybe some form of strong determinism is true). But I'll take it as a given.

God is seen to exist true by this argument and so its seem redundant.

HOW is God shown to exist via this argument? ALL I see is circular reasoning, which proves NOTHING.

But the argument is showing for skeptics, the idea of God is not a mere idea, you can't divorce existence from it because it's vastness and greatness implies it exists. This is known through the concept of Necessary existence.

And I think the concept itself shows it cannot exist.

 

[Polymath257]

If it's unsolved, then it isn't conceived to be necessary. Necessary would be something known to be true in all possible worlds for math wise. I don't enough of GC to comment on whether it's actually conceived to be necessary.

Remember there is a difference between assertion and conceiving. Conceiving would mean, you know precisely, that this thing is necessary. I can perceive for sure 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. Same with short distance between two points is a straight line. That is a Necessary truth about two points. It's not the case in some possible world x, this would be not true.

Well, the concept of a 'straight line' is usually *defined* by the property of being the curve of smallest distance. But that doesn't mean that straight lines exist in all possible worlds.

I know of mathematical systems where 1+1=1. Although, it is true that 2=1 in such systems.

 

[Polymath257]

Contingency the opposite of it independent. Necessary is more then independency, but if anything was independent other than Necessary being, the Necessary being would not exist. In fact, even if independent existence is rationally possible logically coherent wise, then a Necessary being by definition is impossible, because in some possible world x a being can be independent and it would lack it's existence. The way to know that everything is sheer dependence, has two ways. One by contingency nature itself and apply to all things except God and you would have to think about why you need to break the chain of contingency. Or you can if you recognize a Necessary being exists, know everything else has to be contingency and dependent.

OK, again. There is a mathematical statement called the continuum hypothesis (CH). It is *known* that there are models (possible worlds) in which CH is true and there are models (possible worlds) in which it is false.

SO it is simply NOT the case that ALL mathematical truths are necessary. This is an example of one that is contingent.

And no, you did NOT show that a necessary being is unique (you didn't show existence either). Why is it not the case that there are 100 different necessary beings in all possible worlds?

 

[Link]

And no, you did NOT show that a necessary being is unique (you didn't show existence either). Why is it not the case that there are 100 different necessary beings in all possible worlds?

The life amount of God has to include all possible life amount. A necessary being would have all possible life in all possible worlds because in contains it absolutely, otherwise, if it lacked life to any degree, a possible life can be independent of it in some possible world x, in which case it's no longer absolute in life nor necessary (doesn't have to exist in that world).

These are double implications. You can from concept of Necessary existence, and see why that is God. Or you can go from God, and see why it's a Necessary existence.

 

[Polymath257]

The life amount of God has to include all possible life amount.

What does that even mean? What is a 'life amount'? Do I have more 'life amount' than a cat? Than a fish? Than a bacterium? How can that be determined?

As far as I can see, there are exactly two 'life amounts" : you are either alive or you are not.

A necessary being would have all possible life in all possible worlds because in contains it absolutely,

That is not established. Even *if* a necessary being exists (and hence exists in all possible worlds), that would not imply that its characteristics are exactly the same in all possible worlds (just like in some possible world I have different colored eyes).

otherwise, if it lacked life to any degree, a possible life can be independent of it in some possible world x, in which case it's no longer absolute in life nor necessary (doesn't have to exist in that world).

It looks like you have confused 'absolute' (whatever that means) and 'necessary' (holds in all possible worlds).

These are double implications. You can from concept of Necessary existence, and see why that is God. Or you can go from God, and see why it's a Necessary existence.

I don't see either way. Nor do I see why either must exist. In fact, if anything, the ontological argument seems to prove non-existence (since I can easily imagine a possible world in which no God exists).

 

[Link]

I was trying to show a tautology, that Necessary and Absolute and God, they all imply one another.

This is a tautology. So it doesn't matter form where we start, Necessary being, Absolute life/existence or God they imply one another.

And yes Uniqueness is proven.

 

[Polymath257]

I was trying to show a tautology, that Necessary and Absolute and God, they all imply one another.

This is a tautology. So it doesn't matter form where we start, Necessary being, Absolute life/existence or God they imply one another.

And yes Uniqueness is proven.

Well, you have not defined Absoluteness, so I can't tell whether your proof succeeds or not. And you defined God as the necessarily existing being, so that is trivial.

Where did you prove uniqueness? Suppose there are two necessary beings...what happens?

 

[Link]

Well, you have not defined Absoluteness, so I can't tell whether your proof succeeds or not. And you defined God as the necessarily existing being, so that is trivial.

Where did you prove uniqueness? Suppose there are two necessary beings...what happens?

If there is two, it would mean one lacks what is in the other in terms of existence. If this true, they aren't maximally or absolute in existence or life. If this is true, a life independent of one or both of them is possible in some possible world. If this is the case, then neither of them are necessary.

 

[Polymath257]

If there is two, it would mean one lacks what is in the other in terms of existence. If this true, they aren't maximally or absolute in existence or life.

So? We were talking necessary being, not maximal being. The issue of maximal being is a separate one.

And how do you know they are not maximal 'in existence' (and what does THAT even mean)? Just because there are two? Each could be maximal--sort of my point about the possibility of two maximal things that are not largest.

If this is true, a life independent of one or both of them is possible in some possible world. If this is the case, then neither of them are necessary.

How does that follow? Remember, necessary only means that it exists in all possible worlds. Why does having something independent negate that as a possibility.

So, for example, we could have two necessary beings, each dependent on the other and both existing in all possible worlds, right?

 

[Link]

If any life is possibly independent, there is no reason for that being be in that world. So that world is possible without x. In fact, if lacked any life, infinite worlds or even infinite gods are rationally possible to exist in possible worlds without it (if there was more then one necessary being).

If there a possible world without x, then x is not necessary. Therefore that's a contradiction, a paradox, showing it's impossible.

 

[Link]

So, for example, we could have two necessary beings, each dependent on the other and both existing in all possible worlds, right?

Necessary by definition is independent and eternal in terms of existence. It's because it doesn't come to exist, it already did (eternal) and can't but exist (eternal again) and because it can't but exist you can conclude it's not dependent on anything else.

 

[Polymath257]

Necessary by definition is independent and eternal in terms of existence.

No, it simply means it exists in all possible worlds. Or is that not the definition any more?

It may exist for a while and then disappear in some of those worlds. At least, that is one option.

 

[Link]

No, it simply means it exists in all possible worlds. Or is that not the definition any more?

It may exist for a while and then disappear in some of those worlds. At least, that is one option.

Existing in all possible worlds, means, no possible world can exist without it.

That means it cannot but exist. In terms of life, it's subsists absolute to the highest degree of intensity. If it lacked any life, it would no longer be the necessary being. There is some life that can be imagined to subsist on it's own in some world x eternally in this case.

The reason God is known to be one, is because it's known to be absolute in terms of existence, such that he cannot miss anything and nothing possible can be absent from it as in contains all and all possible things.

 

[Link]

Possible world 1- can it do without God's existence being there (no).
Possible world 2 - can it do without God's existence being there (no).
…..
…..
…..
Possible world absolute infinity - can it do without God's existence being there (no).

If God lacked any life.. easy possible world without him, infinite in fact, simple. That life he lacks can be in a world on it's own without God.

Then he would not be necessary being.

 

[Link]

An independent existence of God would mean there is a possible world x in which x which is independent of God just exists on it's own.

When you think of the Absolute Necessary being, you know it it's unique, through it's comprehensive vastness.

You don't count. God's Oneness is not known through counting, it's known through realization of his immense greatness and absoluteness.

 

[Polymath257]

Existing in all possible worlds, means, no possible world can exist without it.

Right.

That means it cannot but exist. In terms of life, it's subsists absolute to the highest degree of intensity. If it lacked any life, it would no longer be the necessary being. There is some life that can be imagined to subsist on it's own in some world x eternally in this case.

No, it means that in any logically consistent set of statements, one of the statements is that this being exists.

In fact, being necessary doesn't clearly imply that it is alive at all. A rock that existed in all possible worlds would be a necessarily existing object, right?

Again, you have no explained what an 'amount of life' means and how being in existence in a possible world for a limited time isn't a possibility.

The reason God is known to be one, is because it's known to be absolute in terms of existence, such that he cannot miss anything and nothing possible can be absent from it as in contains all and all possible things.

So God is the same as the universe?

 

[Link]

A rock that existed in all possible worlds would be a necessarily existing object, right?

It would be. But with respect to everything else, duplications are possible. That is if you duplicate a rock, it's a rock. A necessary existence has to be that existence, in all possible worlds.

A rock has duplications and a rock is not sheer absolute life, and a rock is not something all things depend upon.